Koenigsegg

points and condenser work very well on all IC engines - why bother with the added cost and complexity of electronic ignition
Oh my god - the cost of building an ecu to run something as unimportant as ignition timing - the OEM's will never do that in a million years !

[quote name='Canuck' date='Mar 5 2013, 16:23' post='6153229']
They the supplier or they the individual who schleps for the supplier?

No - it was the Chief Engineer of New Product Development of an extremely large and well-known US company. As an example of what they regarded as outlandish - He (and the rest of his engineers apparently) also regarded the Audi lobe-swapping system with a mixture of amazement and horror (and, believe it or not, hilarity) at how a company like Audi could put such a complex arrangement into full-scale production. They were searching for the simplest possible lobe-swapping system at the time and the Audi system to them seemed impossibly complicated.

I actually quite like the Audi system - it is very clever - and as far as I know it is the first time such a system has been suggested - although I think it is always a little unwise to put slidable cam lobes on a splined shaft - they invariably wear the splines quickly. The Audi system has also lead a University transmission research group in the US to consider using the same principle of a precisely timed axial movement in a "seamless" shift gearbox where the gears are shifted at the exact time to allow an uninterrupted flow of torque. So there is the (remote) possibility of a genuine "seamless" gearbox where the gears really are never disengaged that even 24G would believe.

What do they say about teaching pigs to sing? - a pig that has been taught to sing would quite an accomplishment I would have thought.

On the point about reading papers etc. - I suspect that many people on this forum think that it makes them look very clever to quote references to various learned papers when they have little or no idea just what the paper is about. And to be fair I don't know if you (Canuck) is one of these people or not. (But people from Canadia are pretty dumb I've heard).

Full ECU control of all valve events will have as big an impact on SI engines as EFI or Electronic Spark Timing - No Question.

No Question? Surely you have some vague doubts? If you are so sure perhaps you could suggest a rough timetable as to when pneumatic valve gear will be in common use? I say never - at least not in the next 20 years or so - and even then it may be a system that only superficially resembles the one in question.

I saw a pneumatic-valved engine running a few years ago at research centre - it ran OK but was very RPM-limited. One of the group told me that the main thing they had learned was that there were fundamental problems that appeared to be insoluble no matter how much effort was expended. And the papers I have actually read on the subject tend to say much the same thing.

So - a little wager perhaps? I say there will never be a pneumatic system ever in production use. What do you say? - pneumatic valves in widespread use in one year? two years? Five? Ten? In the future sometime doesn't count, or the next 50 years etc.

And remember - this wager applies to pneumatic systems only. Full ECU control of all valve events is almost certainly coming in some form - whether it is mechanical or "camless" is debatable - but it very likely won't be pneumatic.

I won't be betting on what the winning system will be, only that full ECU control of individual valve events will come. That definition pretty much rules out a mechanical system leaving electric, hydraulic and pneumatic. Manolis' mechanical/hydraulic systems look promising although the range of possible event timings is limited by cam lobe phasing. Cargine's system, although pneumatic, uses a hydraulic latching system and valve position feedback via optical sensors. These two features are probably key to solving the "fundamental problems that appeared to be insoluble no matter how much effort was expended".

Cargine is the best system I have seen so far and for me is the front runner. 50:50 the system will be available on a road car (if only a Koenigsegg) within 5 years and a mass produced car within 10.

I won't be betting on what the winning system will be, only that full ECU control of individual valve events will come. That definition pretty much rules out a mechanical system leaving electric, hydraulic and pneumatic. Manolis' mechanical/hydraulic systems look promising although the range of possible event timings is limited by cam lobe phasing. Cargine's system, although pneumatic, uses a hydraulic latching system and valve position feedback via optical sensors. These two features are probably key to solving the "fundamental problems that appeared to be insoluble no matter how much effort was expended".

Cargine is the best system I have seen so far and for me is the front runner. 50:50 the system will be available on a road car (if only a Koenigsegg) within 5 years and a mass produced car within 10.

Actually I thought you you were quite sure that the winning system would be pneumatic. The above statement seems then to be a reasonable assessment of the situation. Although I would tend to disagree with the need for control over "individual" valve events - this is firmly in the "diminishing returns" category - that is; it is not really worth the trouble.

You probably don't want to be reminded but you had similar unbridled and fervent enthusiasm for the Bishop Rotary Valve as you do for the Cargine/Koenigsegg system. The BRV was clearly never going to ever work in any useful way - in fact it was one of the ugliest and clumsiest attempts at a rotary valve design I have ever seen.

I would suggest that if the Koenigsegg name wasn't associated with the Cargine pneumatic system it would have sunk without trace. No doubt Mr. K himself will make a few million dollars out of the Cargine system - but it will still disappear without trace before long. I would be inclined to bet that it will never even be used in any future production version of the Koenigsegg car.

The BRV is a superior engine breathing system, without question the ultimate rotary valve to date and would have appeared in F1 but for an overnight rule change. That doesn't mean it belongs on every production car.

A look around the Cargine website doesn't reveal any "suckers" who have lined up to lose their money. There is no link asking for investors. The major partners are Koenigsegg and AVL. If you know anything about AVL, you would find it significant that they have been involved with the project for several years and are still listed as a "Corporate partner"

Does anyone know if a Cargine type system is allowed in the current or 2014 F1 rules?

Under the 2014 formula, the system would offer significant benefits. The turbo compound engine would benefit from a host of valve timing strategies in addition to those applicable to road going NA applications. For example, varying valve timing can adjust the balance of energy flows between the reciprocating engine and the recovery turbine (vital for controlling the energy level in the storage device/battery) or to reduce turbo spool-up time.

These are allegedly the tech regulations pertaining to F1 engines. last year's I assume. I see nothing specific at first glance that would prohibit camless valve actuation, but for every published regulation there are apparently pages of secret "clarifications" based on inquiries from teams so we aren't privy to the actual regulations in play in F1. The published regulations are mostly just theater for the public so they can feel included.

Does anyone think for a moment a disruptive technology that threatened the stability of the sport would actually be allowed to race? Some ad hoc interpretation of existing rules or an emergency update of the regulations banning any such innovation would probably ensue if a team were to be impertinent enough to show up at a race with a camless engine without advising the FIA in advance so they could quietly put a stop to it behind the scenes.

An interesting list - but I suspect most don't need individual valve control - just overall valve control. Surely "individual cylinder optimisation" would need individual sensors on each cylinder?

Something I am interested in (but you haven't mentioned) is swapping between 2 and 4-cycle operation. You don't like it? Or did you forget to put it on the list?

I still think a lot of these things are firmly in the "diminishing returns" category. But I suppose once they are in the engine computer you don't have to worry about them anymore - just change the computer if something goes wrong.

Also - if you have achieved item 2. - items 1., 3., 4., and 5. are probably unnecessary. But I suppose, as I mentioned above, once these things are programmed into the computer, it is no trouble to do what you like with the valve events. (Jeez - sounds like I am becoming a supporter of "camless" - possibly I am but only if it works simply and perfectly).

Something I am interested in (but you haven't mentioned) is swapping between 2 and 4-cycle operation. You don't like it? Or did you forget to put it on the list?

Not much use for road going SI engines - emissions and efficiency suffer.

I still think a lot of these things are firmly in the "diminishing returns" category.

Many of them are individually capable of fuel savings of 5% or more. Cargine's claim of 20% improvement on their Saab engine is totally realistic and that is just a development hack originally designed for cams.

Also - if you have achieved item 2. - items 1., 3., 4., and 5. are probably unnecessary.

1 follows from 2 but could be implemented without 2.3 and 4 permit "firing" cycles to be performed at the most efficient MEP (approx 80% of peak) while running the engine at much lighter load.5 reduces cost, volume and mass of starter motor, battery, cables etc6, 7 and 8 all useful tools for improving efficiency and emissions9 Who knows? Cargine claims their pneumatic hybrid concept is feasible.10 has obvious (and numerous "not-so-obvious") benefits.

I found the carbon wheels thing quite interesting. Obviously a good place to save weight! Starting to feel a bit "meh" about the "nude" carbon fibre look though. Not sure what can actually be done about that. Is there a paint tough enough to resist that environment?

Carbon wheels have been readily available for motorcycles for a few years now, though I don't recall reading about them being a factory or dealer option for any marque - strictly aftermarket. Supposedly lots of suspension retuning required after fitting.

These guys are based where i live and seem to be making a big hit. i know at least one of the principals, I'll ask him about paint, basically there shouldn't be an issue we've been painting resins since the year dot, you don't paint the fibre itself

Something I am interested in (but you haven't mentioned) is swapping between 2 and 4-cycle operation. You don't like it? Or did you forget to put it on the list?

i have never come across anything more silly than that in these forums but i suspect i am missing the intended target. it is so bad it makes the notion of pneumatic valve operation seem like something has found away to use sea water as 103 octane fuel. hydraulic valve actuation should be explored.

i have never come across anything more silly than that in these forums but i suspect i am missing the intended target. it is so bad it makes the notion of pneumatic valve operation seem like something has found away to use sea water as 103 octane fuel. hydraulic valve actuation should be explored.

I suggest you write a letter to Ricardo/Ford/Denso et al immediately pointing out the error of their ways before they waste too much money on this concept. And I think you will find that every serious researcher in the "camless" field considers the possibility of 2-4cycle switching to be important.

And you will never see a production "Cargine" pneumatic VVT system.

As for the rest of your statement about using seawater as 103 octane petrol - I don't think that this idea will work. 80 octane possibly - not 103.

I suggest you write a letter to Ricardo/Ford/Denso et al immediately pointing out the error of their ways before they waste too much money on this concept. And I think you will find that every serious researcher in the "camless" field considers the possibility of 2-4cycle switching to be important.

I've gone through what I could and it does come down to efficiency through downsizing, it aims to use two-stroke potential's torque to bring the engine towards cruising speeds where it switches back to 4 stroke. I could assume that Ford's Ecoboost turbocharged one litre three cylinder is in tandem development under downsizing via turbo rather than switching firing to garner torque. After reading it I do find it amusing and very versatile from an engineering perspective but eventually they just might go back to keeping to a two stroker but try to adapt turbocharing it rather than supercharging, the possible reason behind this venture, to supercharge a two stroke to build immense torque and to cruise it off with an energy salvaging turbocharger worked by four stroke.

“To put this into perspective, in two-stroke mode the test bed engine has achieved over 230 Nm per litre. This enables a two-litre switching engine to achieve over 450 Nm, which is similar to a 4.5 litre naturally aspirated four-stroke engine." Thats from a 2.1 litre supercharge turbocharge V6 engine. In two stroke mode it would be equivalent to a 4.2 liter four stroke V12 engine, supercharged. The targeted 450Nm 4.5 liter V8 numbers are that of a naturally aspirated engine, not impressive. Maybe the four stroke bit is where it gets interesting, it runs on all cylinder without any baggage that cylinder deactivation would carry and hits home with miles per gallon. A clever interpretation of of variable engine capacity. Run it too long two stroke and the pain will be felt.

I think an awful lot of the extreme ideas that are proposed (as this appears to be) really are very silly and a waste of time - but this 2/4cycle concept does possibly look very promising.The real problem is the double-speed the valve gear has to run at. I am not fully convinced (to say the least) that there will ever be widespread use of "camless" valve operating systems for 4-strokes - and it seems that there is even less chance of a "camless" system being able to run at the speeds that would be required by a 2-stroke engine at high RPM.

The article indicates the 2-stroke mode is mainly targeted at low-speed high-load operation. This enables high torque to be obtained without the high cylinder pressures (detonation limited) that would be required from a 4-stroke.

A camless system capable of 6000 rpm in 4-stroke operation would be capable of roughly 3000 rpm in 2-stroke mode. Cargine claims 6700 rpm or 9000 rpm with pneumatic valve springs.

to put this into perspective, AMG's A45 2.0 four cylinder twin scroll turbocharge engine has about 450 if/ft torque. 355hp with a claim 40 mpg, ahem. Those numbers quite match Ricardo's 2/4 stroke except for "although with peak torque arriving higher up in the rev range than key rival the BMW 135i, the Mercedes can feel a fraction sluggish low in the revs in the higher gears." (autoexpress)

Just in case: There are many more videos if you look on the side of the playlist. They are going to use carbon fiber springs btw.

Regarding the carbon look. Its a world first carbon wheels on a car? then its ok to show it of ;)

Hardly! In the US there is a couple of manufacturers around with CF wheels available now. There was a story on Lenos site fairly recently about them. mostly propoganda! I suspect like a high mag alloy wheel they will have quite a short life too.

20 years ago a composite type wheel was around for a while on Sprintcars. They were banned as they broke, and also rubbing wheels caused puntures. As would a c/f wheel.

Jalopnik says carbon, the anoraks say glass fibre, for the citreon RR wheel. I agree, GF sounds far more likely and frankly, a better solution for road cars back then, assuming you ever had to deal with potholes and didn't particularly want to replace your wheels every 1000 km.

20 a year give or take i believe. The Regera has 3 electric motors. One on the engine. and one pr driveshaft. So it has vectoring on the wheels. and since they are directly on the driveshaft i must assume they can charge/brake the driveshaft to get the wanted Torque vectoring.

As a concept, I prefer this car in every way to the P1, The Ferrari The Ferrari and the 918. Love the design and fact they didn't even seem to consider 4wd with so much power! It looks more aerodynamic than the others too. Doesn't mean it is but it just looks sleeker and less draggy.